If it was allowed would an arena with gladiators fighting to the death prove popular in modern times?

I think it would be packed out myself which just show how bad our intellectual & moral selves have deteriorated back to sensationalism of the good old days of the Roman empire which has many similarities to the present empire we are living under today, what do you think?

Apr 8 2013:
As it is said, "the more things seem to change, the more they remain the same".
There is nothing new in the world; the same human desire that made the gladiator fights popular in those past and distant years, is still very much our desire. Now we've got action packed movies with lots of blood and guts.
Gladiator fights would be a hit if it is allowed in this 21st century life.

Old or new, we are human; and we've got different ways of saying the same thing.

Apr 6 2013:
Deteriorated? Not hardly!
People slow down when they see an auto accident (they want to see the blood & dead).
Video games are hot sellers when they have death & destruction in them.
Several children get killed by an armed gun man. Governments want to get get stronger gun laws because of it but voters don't want those laws. Guns & ammo. start selling off shelves at record pace.
We may cloak ourselves with intellect & morals, but that cloak is tissue thin.
So yes! Those arenas would be full and the protesters would be outside.

Apr 11 2013:
"Governments want to get get stronger gun laws because of it but voters don't want those laws. Guns & ammo. start selling off shelves at record pace.
We may cloak ourselves with intellect & morals, but that cloak is tissue thin."

I would say that it would be pretty popular in some segments , and you would have heaps of people who would be trying to be gladiators.

The popularity of "reality tv" and the cult of celebrity we have would mean that there would be lots of applicants. The opportunity to be high profile would be a pretty big draw card for some.

Once the reality of death close up is shown though I think the popularity would drop off very quickly. We have an expectation of dramatic and clean death from our entertainment industry - the reality of screaming and leaking bodily fluids may not be palatable to most sensibilities.

All that said given we now have a global population of about 7 billlion people - if half a percent find it attractive and half a percent have access to it that would put the size of the participants (audience and participants) of about 175,000. If half a percent of those interested were suitable to be gladiators (training, fitness etc) the size of the gladiator pool is about 870. The Colosseum had a seating capacity of about 50,000 by modern estimates.

Put another way if 99.5% of people reject it and 99.5% can't even find it and of those 99.5% don't want to or can't be gladiators you could still have a theoretical viewing audience of triple the capacity of the Roman Colosseum, with enough initial participants for over 400 bouts (in the first round).

Well done my man, I'm not mathematical in any sense but I still love others doing the sums for or against what I propose at any given time.

In our present social structure I can't see most people attending anyway myself & of course like you said a percentage of other who have attended such events wouldn't return for obvious reasons as you have stated here. In saying all this our social structure can change at a drop of a hat like a good size meteor hitting the Earth, you would immediately get food shortages & starving people have been known to be some what un-civilised when threatened with starvation.

I'm utterly flawed that people like Julian below think the way they do, sorry Julian, as it's very much like blind faith to me but everyone to their own as long as they don't hurt me through their blind faiths.

Participants wouldn't be a problem, take warring gangs from our streets for starters & what about the Arabs & Israeli's, I'm sure some of them wouldn't mind participating & maybe it would be better if they did fight in these arenas at least they wouldn't be threatening the live of innocent women & children on the streets. So what's civilised & what's not again???

1) You would need to find people who would be willing to fight to the death as the gladiators and I can't imagine this would happen.
If people were forced into being gladiators, society would have much bigger problems then just the potential for enjoyment of this.

2) Assuming that this gladiator arena was taking place (with people volunteering), any people that did enjoy watching it would be met with at least equal (but probably greater) opposition from people that disagreed with it. If it ever did exist it would exist underground to avoid this opposition. Consequently the glory of being a gladiator (if there is any) would be diminished and less people would volunteer and over time nobody would want to do it. It It couldn't survive in current society.

Yes this is obvious with our CURRENT social ideological make up that this wouldn't take off but it's a hypothetical question what if it was allowed & of course the arenas would be packed. Do you honestly think if the world economy totally collapsed or a comet hit the planet that every day normal people wouldn’t act inappropriately to stay alive? I think you might be horridly surprised in human nature if any of this did happen Julian because we are not that civilised yet.

What happens in riots, remembering these people at these riots are normal everyday people who are angry about something? We do get people seriously hurt & even killed so in adverse situations the best of people can act inappropriately when there isn’t a food shortage or a collapse of the social structure, how would they react if there was which can happen at any time?

I thoroughly disagree that their wouldn’t be anyone to participate in such ventures, I knew a number of bikies from Mount Druitt & Black Town areas of Sydney that would, we get them fighting quite happily on the streets between different gangs anyway so you might have to rethink on this & that is only the tip of the ice berg as I think some of the Arabs & Israeli’s wouldn’t mind having ago at each other either in actual fact maybe it would be better to do this than to have a full scale war don’t you think!!!!

Sorry Julian you just don’t make sense here. This question is if it was allowed would the arenas today be packed, looking at all the other violence that attracts us, I sorrowfully know the arenas would be packed.

I'd like to know, when you say the arenas would be packed do you mean that they will be packed because most people are naturally violent or because a select few a violent but due to the population of earth this number will add up.

I don't agree with the view that the majority of us are inherently violent. In a crisis, such as a food shortage, people may do more extreme things to survive however I do not agree that they will enjoy doing so. As for riots, there is a lot to say about social psychology influencing those, and the goal of a riot is to destroy property, not life.
If you believe it is the select few, then I agree that there could potentially be people that are violent (probably even enough to fill a stadium). However you are assuming two things which I do not agree with. First, that violent individuals are violent and angry indiscriminantly and would simply hurt anybody (i.e the other gladiator). And second, that people will 'enjoy' watching it.

Ultimately, we have a version of gladiator which is conducive to current society. Things such as MMA fit the bill. But we have rules designed to keep the fights from going overboard. Firstly, because I doubt as many people would volunteer for death matches, and secondly because I thoroughly disagree that this would be what the public wants. The goal of being a gladiator (or MMA) is to prove that you are the strongest. However society has moved on from believing that losing such a battle is worth the end for the losers life. In fact, society likes to see an individual come back and triumph over a previous victor after continued training. The alternative would be a fight equivalent to MMA followed by a one sided execution by the victor. Not a pretty sight.

Julian

PS: fighting on tv/stadiums between nations would in no way prevent any wars and may even induce them.

Apr 14 2013:
G’day Julian
I wish people wouldn’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t say most people are inherently violent Julian but I can see how you would assume this is what I mean.

Like I have mentioned a number of times in previous replies it would only take one thing to change an average person into a violent one, the Dark ages & riots of today are a good indication of this because people’s emotions change when one is caught up in the moment. In actual fact the people of Rome who went to these arenas weren’t all blood thirsty barbarians but I don’t think they were the average person on the street either, what made or enticed them to watch such barbarism? All I’m saying is that sort of mentality hasn’t changed that much however like I have also said things have changed enough today that this sort of thing won’t happen but it also wouldn’t take much to go back to that sort of mentality again if we are unaware.

Most of the gladiators didn’t want to be there either fighting to the death in arenas but they had to & this is no different in a food shortage after a disaster today, of course most people wouldn’t enjoy it as I have never stated otherwise.

Again I never said that violent people have to be angry & would indiscriminately kill anyone, gladiators didn’t do this either but were often forced to kill when told too but today violent gangs freely do it, what’s more barbaric someone who is ordered to kill or someone who kills by will? This is my point!!! Some people enjoy & even join in when someone is being raped these days but not only that it gets telecast on the net which often receive numerous hits.

Sorry Julian I can see your point to a point yes arenas wouldn’t happen today but my point is if they did they would be packed, by the minority yes but still packed.

Apr 12 2013:
For contemporary society to have laws in place that reject roman arenas, we must have chosen it to be so. That in itself presupposes that we detest such forms of brutality and wish never to see the light of it again, however much we may indulge ourselves in lesser forms of violent entertainment.

Hence, it seems to me that you have posted a rhetorical question.
For gladiators fighting to the death to be legal and thus popular, you already presupposing that societies across the world see the arena as an acceptable form of entertainment. (as this question is being posed to a global audience, I assume you mean worldwide legalisation of the arena) The act of allowing gladiators by itself already implies acceptance of extreme violence. In this way, I propose to you, Mathew, that your question has already answered itself.

So, instead of debating about gladiators, we might as well be talking about human nature itself. Reading your comments, I respect your opinion and profess that I cannot fully understand the horrors of war as viewed through the eyes of a soldier. However, there is no real basis to assume that most humans would enjoy extreme violence of the kind that would result in mutilation or death. For every violent inclination that some individual possess, you can find in equal measure the inclination towards kindness and gentleness in some other individual. Personally, I am more Machiavellian on the subject of human nature, but I still see humans as complex moral agents; regardless of whether humans are fundamentally inclined towards violence or nonviolence from birth, there is no reason to despise the capacity of humans to be nurtured into kind and reasonable beings. What matters is that humans retain even till today the capacity for logical reasoning and moral reflection. Why else would you be posting this debate topic in the first place?

Apr 12 2013:
G’day Ethan
Genuinely impressed Ethan with your reply, I suppose it is a little rhetorical in that it relates to an extreme.

Let me ask you a question Ethan? What sort of highly intelligent being would create weapons of mass destruction that can wipe every living thing off the face of the Earth or kill of their own environment with all sorts of toxins? Not a very smart one that’s for sure. Once we stop totally from conflicting with each other & destroying & polluting our environment then we can say Roman arenas are of the past but not until then I believe, we are still Neanderthals in my mind.

I don’t think I actually said most humans, if I did I didn’t mean too however it only takes the minority to make a radical change anyway in human perception for example the dark ages came about because of a few religious radicals & soon overtime took control of all of Europe & sent us some years back in evolution for the main reason they slaughtered anyone who had the smarts not connected directly with the church & at one stage they killed churchmen as well on sight. You don’t think this can happen again even if a meteor or the world economy totally collapsed? Well I think it can for the main reason so many other civilised civilisations in human history have fallen before to barbarism, Rome is but one example.

Rome believe it or not was civilised to the rest of the known world at that time & they thought exactly the same as we do today, it can’t possibly happen but it did. Human thinking of today isn’t that much different to what it was back in Roman times, the same thought processes still remain however hopefully because of our knowing this from the past we won’t make the same mistakes but like I said a good size meteor or a small comet hitting the Earth would answer that question & it can happen at anytime.
Love
Mathew

Apr 9 2013:
I think this is an overly pessimistic way of looking at it, because the fact of the matter is that it ISN'T allowed. I think our laws are an incredibly revealing measure of our values, and those laws say killing for sport is wrong. I think it's unreasonable to expect some deep essence of human nature to have changed since Roman times -- it's our society that has changed, as measured by what is and isn't allowed.

It's only a hypothetical question, if it was allowed the arenas would be full. Look at how many people are celebrating the death of Margret Thatcher not just at home but on the streets, you don't think this is a bit Neanderthalic & immoral, what's the difference to celebrating the death of a person in or out of an arena?

We just had yet another fatal death in a contact sport of a 15 yr old, anyone playing a contact sport to win has the tendency to kill, yes I know it's not intentional but it doesn't stop the players from playing it hard to win which is to the best of their ability.

Comment deleted

That's a very good point Carolyn, prove it doesn't exist & no one could because it's still with us today in many ways. One of my biggest arguments in saying Rome is still apart of us not just through our political structure but that people will stand around in glee watching someone being raped &/or bashed & when this is put on the net the amount of hits it gets is staggering like with any violent act, if this isn't Roman I will be a monkeys uncle!!

Apr 6 2013:
I really believe that our world is changing for the better, while still being very aware of everything that is NOT beneficial in our world.

For one thing, an arena with gladiators fighting to the death would NOT be allowed in the U.S.....would it? Step in the right direction?

Relatively new rules in sports limit the players regarding violence? NFL and NBA players have been heavily fined and/or suspended for aggressive, violent behaviors on the field and court. Hockey players have been fined, and the rules for "checking" (what is acceptable and what is not) have been changed. Tennis players are being fined for inappropriate behaviors like throwing rackets on the court, and baseball players are being fined for throwing bats on the field in anger.

People slow down when they see an auto accident....I'd like to think it is because they want to help? I notice that cars stop OFTEN now when they see someone trying to cross the road.

I am noticing that the national news programs are presenting good, interesting, encouraging stories at the end of the newscast, which I think/feel is a GREAT idea.

Unfortunately, we(humans) normalize many behaviors that are not beneficial, and I believe what we focus on expands. We definitely need to be aware of what needs changing, and I like to focus on the good "stuff" because it is more encouraging for people to see.....I believe it plants seeds that might, with nurturing, grow:>) I know I'm a Pollyanna, and that, to me, is how we move things in a certain direction. We do not nurture or change anything by focusing on everything that is wrong.

The first argument against this, is that I am not aware or informed enough, so I repeat.....I am very aware of the challenges in our world. I spend energy with awareness AND focus on the positive things that are happening in our world. "BE" what we want to "SEE".

Very good response.......They are also trying to clean up sports in Australia as well which is an awfully good step to take however the movies & games that are most popular these days have a high violent content in them (sensationalism) which is a bit of a worry & is obviously a part of the violence seen in the shooting of late for example.

I’ve been around cold blooded killers & they would kill at the drop of a hat if they could get away with it & you would be amazed how many more people would either join in or observe such actions. Take a look at rapes in recent times in how many people where standing around watching or participating in such actions, bring in the thrill & excitement of sensationalism of any kind & you will always draw a crowd of some kind & this is what the media uses to draw crowds, for a profit of course. There is a huge profit in sensationalism & as long as that is there the threat of immoral actions will always be present.

We all need to learn to draw on the positives of life more but on the other hand one should never ignore the obvious, ignorance isn’t bliss, could you imagine if the cops where ignorant what would happen to the rest of us? I do I’m afraid as we all should, now that's positive.

Apr 6 2013:
Hi Mathew,
I am aware that movies and video games often have violent content, and I believe this helps to "normalize" violent behavior.

I have considered rapes and killings Mathew. In addition to volunteering with the dept. of corrections, I also volunteered in a woman/children's shelter and a family center, where we saw MANY victims of violence and abuse....including....and not limited to rape.

I agree....it is not productive to ignore reality. I do not agree that being afraid is positive. When we are afriad, it often interferes with taking action to change.

Don't get me wrong Colleen I'm not saying we would allow such behaviour as an arena with people fighting to the death however what I am saying here is a lot of people around us who would & the number is scary, that's alarming & we, should as a whole, deal with this as you would obviously know.

I'm spiritually aware myself without any set convictions & have had a lot to do with other spiritually aware people who just bury their heads in the sand when it come to something negative, It just doesn't exist for them. I find this just as big a problem as negativity because all their doing is ignoring the negatives in response to the negatives which to me is a negative response in opposition.

I teach acceptance & look at any apposing thing as a difference that's all not a negative & eventually any opposition to any said negativity fades away as if it wasn't there in the first place, you to me seem like this going by your responses as you also don't seem to be afraid of negativity but are aware of how continues negative influences can sway us to do things we usually wouldn't do.

Apr 7 2013:
Many people don't know how, or are afraid, to address challenges Mathew, and for those people, putting their heads in the sand may feel more safe. However, I believe many people in our world are becoming much more aware, ready, willing and able to change things. Our advanced communication systems, like TED, allow us to communicate throughout our world, which facilitates more awareness, and change starts with awareness.

We can only do the best we can as individuals, and hopefully be good role models for those who are afraid to take positive steps toward peace in our world. If a person is secure in him/herself, the negative influences around us can only motivate us to take action to change those behaviors that are not beneficial to our global community. I cannot be swayed to do things I usually would not do.....can you?

Yes anyone can be swayed to do things they wouldn't usually do, if a sizable meteorite hit this Earth I would kill to sustain myself & my family.

If we could go back & see what consumerist materialism would do to ourselves & our environment we too wouldn’t be swayed in taking on such a system to live by, we are always swayed in doing things that are hurting ourselves & the environment around us that we wouldn’t do unless we were swayed or brainwashed in taking on normally. We are acceptingly vulnerable in more ways than one & should be at least familiar with this without dwelling on it.

Apr 19 2013:
The reason that it is not allowed is because our moral philosophy on the subject has changed. It's as simple as that. It wasn't as if someone suddenly came along and banned bull fighting, fox hunting, gladiator fighting, stoning homosexuals etc. Our perception of these rituals have collectively, gradually changed over time. It was only two days ago gay marriage wasn't allowed in New Zealand and yesterday it became legal. So to answer your question: no it wouldn't be entertaining because we, as a society, have decided that it wouldn't be - a long time ago for this specific activity.

The type of arena used ,as you have said here, has changed that's all as we are just as aggressive & blood thirsty as ever, in actual fact I think it's more blood thirsty, how many people have actually died because of the financial arena even excluding the great depression which was a blood bath in one way or another? As I have stated by supplying facts that the Roman arenas weren't as blood thirsty as some people thought or obviously want to think but I can't say the same with the financial arena.

If you take into consideration the drug companies in how they want to keep us sick even though it kills some of us I think we are actually less civilised & moral not more. Also I think Doctors being able to invest in drug companies is a sham to say the least as I know of a number of people who have died from taking too many pills at one given time.

Apr 19 2013:
I'm positive that the arena in today's time would be jam packed full of onlookers to watch people fight to the death. I'm sure that it would and could replace Network Shows like UFC and Wrestling. You can theoretically say that you fight to the death as it is if you're into those kind of sports, because all it takes is really the wrong move and out they go. Our society craves this kind of entertainment. But again, it doesn't go to well for those that get effected in emotion over the site of someone the just seen, not dead not moving. So Yes.

It's very sad to think it would be but it would which doesn't say much about our civilisation, a few hundred years ago we thought the Mayans were barbaric so what are they going to say about us in a few hundred years time, not much better?

Apr 15 2013:
I as a teen believe for some reason that it would be accepted to some extent. If regulations were shown as to who could participate and it was totally voluntary there would be a large fanbase.
Personally I don't agree as it would encourage violent behavior. Look at WWE, as a child I was so mesmerized by what they could do and usually fought with my brothers. Now that I'm a little more mature I belive that no human being has any right to decide what fate another humans life falls in.
Inconclusion I think that this generation as much as we claim to be more sensitive while we sort of deattach ourselves from the more serious global issues, there is this part of some of us that like action in this context.
But this is just my opinion.

Apr 15 2013:
I have been pondering this discussion and chatting with a couple of co-workers/friends about it. While I do believe that a portion of the population would watch and attend a gladiatorial event, I think a part that has not been discussed is the "prize" for the event.

Yes, death in it actuality would be a deterrent for some. It would most certainly turn off a portion of the population. Not to mention that another portion of the population would be turned off while watching the event and realizing that it was in fact to the death and death is not what they expected. Still, a portion of the population would definitely watch the spectacle.

One qualifier would be the "prize". For example, prisoners, fighting for their life and freedom, might be more interesting that two gladiators fighting for a dollar prize. I wonder what effect that might have on the individuals watching. For those who wanted to see "justice served" they might be more interested in watching if they thought "good would win" and "evil would lose", however that might be defined. The higher the stakes and prize, the more likely people would be to watch. If the spectacle was just to watch two people fight it out, then I don't see this taking off as extremely popular.

I would contend that it would come back how well the event was advertised and supported by others.

I wouldn't attend myself of course but there are a certain portion of the populous that would.

Below is a couple of links explaining that most of the gladiators where mischiefs slaves & criminals but 19 out of 200 gladiators died in the arenas which would include from wounds incurred in the actual arena itself.

I have a point to make, we have electrocuted, hung, drawn & quartered shot, poisoned & so on criminals since Roman times without the criminals having a chance of redemption however in the Roman arenas they had this chance at redeeming themselves , what is more civilised, just killing people in cold blood or allowing them a chance of redemption remembering only 19 out of 200 gladiators die? I think most if not all the people on death row would participate some how especially if they could become wealthy doing so.

Apr 16 2013:
I noted the links as well and the information regarding the low actual death rate. Thought I might question the data in this particular case. That being said, we discussing a different animal in this case I believe, especially when we suggest that death could be likely. Though with modern medicine, we could severely limit the death toll with medical staff on hand and such. Not would I attend or watch such an event as it does not even remotely interest me.

I feel that the question of "redemption" also comes with a parallel discussion about justice. Is it just to allow a death row inmate a chance to walk free rather than face his crimes? That question alone would be a lively discussion. As is the discussion about the death penalty when it arises. The discussions about redemption and justice deserve discussion and merit time spent on the topic. Thought I don't know that this is quite the thread to address those issues.

Yes I suppose your right, less people would die of wounds because of medical assistance however I'm like you I wouldn't attend nor would I like such arenas to exist again even though it seems more humane than to electrocute or hang people without a chance of redemption.

Would I give a child molester & murderer a chance of redemption? The spiritually aware side of me says yes but my human side says absolutely not, hard one to answer but the Romans answered this I suppose when it came to such a person on the end of a sward & a decision had to be made for life or death. I don't think the child molester would survive some how.

Apr 19 2013:
What an interesting POV you've presented here, Matthew. I agree with your thoughts about redemption. Hopefully, we can find better ways than the gladiator route, but I definitely think we should go in that direction. My perspective in my earlier answer was focused on the morality of the observers more than the desperation of the participants.

I think everyone no matter what should have a chance of redeeming themselves especially for the life they might have taken in my mind anyway.

Saying that the arenas would be packed is also saying that a certain amount of the populous are immoral which would probably be correct but of course these day they are the minority not the majority.
Love
Mathew

Apr 14 2013:
Obviously it would be popular, and I think that if you offer these modern Gladiators enough money they would risk their own life in such pursuits. As far as entertainment, people always find epic drama in any conflict,
What it is about is the simple reality of what people are willing to do to get ahead in today's world: if one legal fight to the death could elevate you from poor to rich( someone who's life is eternal drudgery and toilet cleaning has a chance to be someone who is allowed to follow dreams) wouldn't you do it?

Well it's obvious some people would rather starve to death first or would they?

It’s good you brought this up about being paid for such ventures Uri, Russian roulette is the modern version of the Roman arenas & it still goes on today in certain countries because of the exact reasons you bring up here.

Apr 12 2013:
We pretty much have that already, don't we? I don't know how else to describe the ongoing "Wars" in Afghanistan, Iraq, , etc. No to mention the past ones, like Vietnam. Plenty of live TV footage. The media several years ago let the cat out of the bag: It's not "news", it's "entertainment".

Apr 11 2013:
If it was suddenly announced on television that there would be a gladiator fight to the death, would the public respond positively? No. Perhaps I have unrealistic faith our humanity, but I certainly think there are at least enough conscious minds to prevent anything like this from happening. Seeing other people die for no reason is not entertainment, at least for many of us.

However: could something like Roman times emerge again? Yes. Could a government bewilder and manipulate their citizens into actively support such a thing? Yes. My mind goes to the Hunger Games trilogy, here, but I won't stray into fiction. Governments have proved themselves capable of horrible things and have driven their people to do unthinkable crimes - we need look no further than the Holocaust to see what damage can be done by a powerful enough leader and enough people to follow him. But would a gladiator fight in a present day society become popular? Even if enough of the society glazed over it, I cannot imagine the rest of the world keeping silent for long - we are not that far gone as a race.

Apr 11 2013:
I share your faith in humanity May P. I believe our world is becoming more interconnected, partly because of our advanced communication systems, and partly because, hopefully, we are evolving as thinking, feeling, intelligent human beings.

Apr 11 2013:
G'day Colleen
Hypothetically, if a good size meteor hit the Earth don't you think most people would do anything for food even you, if you have ever been really hungry you will know what I mean. We would instantaneously become barbarians again in a flash no matter how intelligent or civilised we think we are, you would be surprised, obviously, how you would react especially watching your loved ones starving.

I just can’t believe you & a few others can’t see this as my initial question of the Roman arenas is in the same context as mentioned here with a meteor hitting Earth. It is hard for some people to think hypothetically terminologically but that is all we are doing here.

Let’s take a look at floods for instance, most people do the right thing in a flood but there are many that don’t in regards for instance looting however if you made looting non-illegal how many more would loot? You would be surprised. Instead of burying our heads in the sand & say we ourselves wouldn’t stoop to these low levels so most other people wouldn’t either think hypothetically what if?

I’m sorry but I think outside the square & I if that’s supposed to be negative according to you & a few others so be it but at least I’m being realistic about what if’s. Don’t be fooled about how wonderful we are & how intelligent we are supposed to be just look at the dark ages & you can see how far back a human race can go & how brutal the everyday average person can behave.

All I’m saying here is we need to be aware of our overly complacent thought process.
Love
Mathew

Apr 12 2013:
No Mathew, I do not believe I would "instantaneously become barbarian", it is not difficult for me to think "hypothetically", and I am responding to your hypothetical suggestions.

I agree....there are many people who make good appropriate decisions when facing challenges. I am not burying my head in the sand Mathew, and I'm getting tired of you accusing me of that. I have thought "what if" Mathew, and I responded respectfully to your question and concerns. I do not feel as if I am "fooled" Mathew, I simply do not agree with you. I do not have an "overly complacent thought process". I thought you resolved that accusation.

I just want to mention that I don't think anyone is shaming you for "thinking outside the square" (incidentally, as a linguistically-minded individual, I'm interested if this is the common phrase in Australia, as we say "out of the box" in the US). I, at least, joined the TED conversation in order to think out of the box. However, Colleen and I seem to respectfully disagree with you. Hoping there are no hard feelings!

Apr 11 2013:
I'm afraid I do not share your faith in humanity! :(
If you read my comment (somewhere! :D) with the right psychological mechanisms in place you could easily make it possible, and make some economic incentives, and crush most opposition! (And enjoyable too!)

A few people, as yourself, seem to be missing the point here, the question is hypothetical of course. I can’t believe people are taking this in a literal sense as it’s obvious it’s hypothetical as other have pointed out; please don’t take in in a literal sense.

Let me ask you a question here, if hypothetically we legalised killing what do you think would happen, this is the same question as with the arenas? Killings would escalate out of control obviously not just because of the perpetrators but the intended victims would also kill to save themselves & their families, violence altogether would escalate.

I cannot answer for others, I suppose, but I can answer for myself. If murder was legalized, no, I would not start killing people. I can't imagine myself doing that. I have never wanted to kill, and I can not imagine a situation where I would want to kill - perhaps I am wrong in that, but that is how I know myself. I am under the impression that there are others like me. We are brought up with the understanding that killing is bad. We would bring up our children in the same way. While I recognize that there are people for whom this would not be the case, I tend to see the majority of people choosing to live together rather than kill each other - a generally sensible option for the continuation of the human race.

I'm confused by your 'hypothetically' - No, I'm not taking this 'literally' - I do not think we are in any danger of having killing be legalized. However, I am taking the hypothetical situations you present and treating them literally. Can you clear up this confusion?

I don't mean the righteous people would go out & kill but a lot of others would & to protect ourselves we would have to kill them to survive.

Some people here are taking what I asked as being literal in a sense that having killing sprees in an arena can't happen because righteous people wouldn't have it but what if it did happen hypothetically.

What happened in the dark ages? We went back a thousand years not just because of the killing sprees but because they killed off the literate & educated people amass. This seems like it couldn't possibly happen again, this is what the Romans probably thought as well remembering in their time they where the most civilised people in the known world back then.

If the world economy totally collapsed or a meteor hit the Earth you would see something that modern man today thought could never happen again, barbarism, it wouldn't need much & we must be wary of this is all I'm saying. I just don't want to leave a mess for our kids & their kids to deal with we must recognise the problem & deal with it now.

Don't get me wrong I know there are a lot of lovely people out there but we can't allow this to blind us to the wrongs still being committed.

Apr 12 2013:
Mathew,
I do not perceive myself and some others "missing the point". We simply have a different perspective regarding your hypothetical qustion. You are right Mathew, there have been horrible situations in the past, and there continues to be some horrible and challenging situations in our world.

On the whole, I believe our global community is changing, and there are a lot of horrible things that happened in the past that would no longer be allowed. That is not to say there are no more horrible behaviors. In my perception, the majority of people in our world are caring, respectful loving people who want to beneficially contribute to our global community. Again.....that does not mean I have my head in the sand regarding the challenges in our world. We have plenty of room to impove.

You seem to be trying to say that the majority of people in our world like to see killing and chaos, and would do it at the drop of a hat when given the chance. That is not my perception of our world, and apparently there are at least a few people on this thread who share my perception.

There are a LOT of people in our world Mathew who ARE recognizing some of the problems in our world and working toward change. It is not that we are not getting your point Mathew. MY point is that I do not agree with you about our world and everyone in it being horrible, bad, killer, barbarians.

There is no hiding my head in the sand, being complacent, or not getting your point, etc. I am very aware of the challenges we face in our world, and I believe there are many aware people who are facing those challenges. Do you understand that there is a difference between not "getting it" and disagreeing?

Apr 12 2013:
May: Could "Roman times" happen again?! Where have you been:? We are doing it right now, and have been for some time. The last hundred years in particular. Vast slaughters, with much popular participation even, by people almost all of whom were "innocent" or ignorant. With the benefit of hindsight, we can confidently say they were all about nothing in particular.

I think we might have a confusion. There is a difference between the wars and massacres of the past hundred years and a gladiator fight. I don't know which "slaughters" you are referring to in particular, but all that I know of were for a specific cause or belief, such as the Holocaust. I am not saying the Holocaust is any "less bad" than the gladiators, but it is very different in intent. These slaughters are done by someone who has a set cause or belief - someone trying to eradicate or torture a certain group - whereas gladiator fights were entertainment. This is what I mean by "Roman times". If there is something similar to gladiators (on a large scale - I am perfectly aware of the horrible things that people have done at war), I would be very interested in hearing about it.

Apr 12 2013:
May: I was a history major, as well as a war vet. I think you are incredibly optimistic to believe that there is some fundamental difference between wars and massacres, other than the trivial one of excellent propaganda , and industrial class organization. As for the specific "cause", "belief", etc., on later investigation, it usually turns out to be quite fanciful and erroneous. The Holocaust is an excellent example. I know the official story, but actually WW2 was not about Jews or the Holocaust at all.. I was around at the time, even before the war, and I can tell you that the Holocaust was only discovered and confirmed many years after the war started. Incidentally, I think it is pretty accurate to say that in all these conflicts, the purported "goals" were almost never achieved.

When I referenced the Holocaust, I was referencing the Holocaust, not WW2. WW2 was a war, the Holocaust was a massacre. (I know that WW2 was not originally about the Holocaust - US History classes are not that poor and prejudiced yet.) War is the defense of a principle (or at least is purported as such), a massacre is the attempted obliteration of a group of people, often in defense or pursuit of some belief - that is how the definitions work in my mind, perhaps you feel differently.

What I'm trying to say is that wars and massacres are not for entertainment, as with the gladiator fights. They have goals, perhaps beliefs and causes behind them. I'm not saying that the "goals" are good or achieved, but they exist. As far as I know, WW2 was not started on a whim because someone thought it would be fun to kill some people, or watch some people be killed. If you have a different take on that, I'm interested it hear it. I realize that you were around and I wasn't, so your information is more reliable.

Apr 12 2013:
Thanks for a reasoned reply. Perhaps I am now more cynical than I used to be, but I believe I am correct in saying that people's minds are a lot like icebergs: mostly out of sight and unknown even to the holder of the opinions. I was referring to the people who initiate the wars,, nothing personal After the memoirs are written, long after the war, then we find out something of what the holder of the opinion had in mind at the time.. Usually , it turns out to be the blind leading the blind. Remember what McNamara said about the Viet war? He was even more clueless than an astute reader of the NY Times at the time. In short, I see a pattern here of flaky rationales for mass slaughters, which I think are more like exciting,super-football games for the public . Those who really know what the wars are like are mostly dead or severely damaged , or don't like to talk about it. And a lot of them blame THEMSELVES. The attempt to make a fine distinction between massacres and wars is part of the propaganda for the war. People might rebel if they knew more about it.

I'm afraid I don't know what McNamara said - and I lament my ignorance. However, I completely agree that many are clueless in war, and certainly Vietnam is a prime example of war gone wrong (although they all start wrong, in my opinion). I still think the majority of the public would rebel against open killing for sport, though as I mentioned before with coercion and propaganda most things can be made to look moral. There are those who would go along, but the pure fact that wars must be justified by defense of principles or land - even falsely - shows that we are not quite there yet, in my opinion.

I should have been more sensitive around the subject of war in my initial posts, because I know that horrible things happen as a result of war that blurs the distinction between fighting for a cause and fighting just to kill, and it is nothing to be glossed over. Your responses have made me think more deeply about the state of the world; I admit a tendency to skim over war in my mind. Every time I go too deep I just get depressed - and that's no good reason to not keep the horrors in mind and hold those serving/served/surviving in the light (if you'll pardon my Quaker-ness). Sadly I don't have my copy of The Things They Carried with me right now, but I'm putting it on my reader list for when I return home, to remind myself (I'm interested in your opinion of Tim O'Brien's portrayal of war, if you're interested in giving it).

Apr 13 2013:
May P:
How interesting that you are some kind of Quaker. My family is strongly influenced by our Quaker relatives., One of them, however is known as the "Fighting Quaker" (in the Revolution)
Perhaps it is a gender difference, but I never saw the purpose of the war that I was in as "killing people". It's like with the Police. Their job is NOT to "kill bad guys". I was a Medic anyway.
I think the evolution of society has been to gradually increase the size and stability of groups within which killiing people is simply not thought of. There are probably more cities in the world larger than a great many of the "Nations". Mayors simply do not have the right to have people killed, whatever the reasons. Presidents still do, no matter what kind of Banana Republic they are representing.
When the day comes that ordinary people agree that NO ONE should have the right to kill people , period, no matter what half-baked excuse they come up with, then we will find it easy to put an end to killing, I think, by using the tried and true methods that lower levels of organization have used already. Note that this does not contradict any idea of actual, physical self-defense, which is clear cut enough that a Jury could figure it out.

Apr 11 2013:
I think the fact that its not allowed says something. but being illegal never stopped anything from happening. how hard is it to find underground deathmatches? Idk. I think if people really wanted to see people fight to the death it would be easy to find some under ground stuff. I think watching people fight the way they do now is bloody enough. i don't think people are that eager to want to see someone die in the ring due to a hatchet to the head.

Apr 10 2013:
YEp, but the main diference is , in rome the audience was only the people who was at the coliseum or the arena, and today, this circus is in whole world , people fighting vs people, and the audience its everybody around it , everybody can watch and give you likes on facebook with the same finger that judge your development in this big fight of daily life. We are now a worst version of that rome circus. yesterday was lions versus humans, and now we have the big show of humans vs humans.

This has come up in recent comments which I didn't see until others started bringing this up that we all live in a Roman arena called Earth as we have our master we serve which are called multinationals & if we don't perform to their expectations we suffer & yes quite often die. The face book thing is but another angle, thanks Arnoldo.

If we look at what is popular in current sports and media, the only thing we are missing is the actual fighting. Well, not even that. American football is fighting with pads on where the "big hits" are highlighted and repeated for the public. Mixed martial arts is stopped before death occurs but is nearly at this point. Boxing as well. "Wrestling", not the sport but the television show, is about blood and combat. Especially with the rise of MMA, we are nearly there.

There would be those "opposed" to it in theory, but let's be honest with ourselves, the right marketer and the right publicity, this would be a great event. Money would roll rin, the bookies would make out big, and it would corner a portion of the market that is not "being met".

So yes, absolutely it would be popular by those same folks that watch car racing for the accidents and WWE for the big hits.

Most of us seem to be saying the same thing, hypothetically if it was allowed the arenas would be packed & that is awfully sad or such a o called intelligent race f people to do. We looked at the Mayans some hundreds yrs later of being barbaric butchers, I'm just wondering what they will say about us in a few hundred yrs time as it won't have anything to do with being an intelligent civilised race of people that's for sure.

Love
Mathew

PS Thank God for intelligent people such as us who denounce violence altogether!!

Apr 11 2013:
I agree that the arenas would be packed and the "audience" would be a sellout consistently. Television/media would also make massive amounts from it.

Where I break from your line of thinking is that intelligent people do not necessarily denounce violence. Mindless, gladiatorial violence as you discuss from the start of this thread, yes, that is abhorrent. The loss of life simply for sport, or any other reason is horrid.

Violence, when it occurs in the protection of others, such as war, self-defense, etc. is a different category/level of it. And something that I would separate from this conversation. Sometimes, the threat of violence, through military force, is the thing that limits the violence itself.

In a sense you are breaking from my line of thinking, I agree that intelligent people can also intensify violence look at the splitting of the atom & the ensuing atom bomb for staters. Don’t get intelligence mixed up with deviousness, these devises people use intelligent people for their own devious ends that make them look clever but they aren’t the ones with the real brains behind their deviousness I believe!!

Yes war & other related conflicts are needed at time like with the Coral Sea battle in WWII, if it wasn’t for so many Americans giving up their live in this one battle we Australians just might not be here now because it was that close however if we could rid ourselves of such violence the world of course would be a far better place.

Apr 11 2013:
With all due respect and love Mathew, I wish to remind you that several people, including me, have expressed the idea that if it was allowed the arenas would NOT be packed, so I do not agree that "Most of us seem to be saying the same thing". The fact that it is NOT allowed tells us something about how we, as thinking, feeling intelligent humans MAY be changing:>)

Apr 11 2013:
The thought that came to me in reading the question was that we are probably much better able to predict what people we actually know would do than people we do not know. In fact, people are, I think, much more likely to make negative assumptions about people they don't know.

So what people predict tells us mostly about how they view others.

I know this is not the question, but I think it is important for anyone to ask why he might view others more negatively than he tends to view those he knows well.

Apr 11 2013:
I agree Fritzie, with the idea that we may be better able to predict what people we actually know might do. The more information we have about a person, including ourselves, probably influences our own worldview.

You think/feel "what people predict tells us mostly about how they view others"? Or could it be they are predicting based on their own worldview? Both?